November 11, 2008, 8:15 a.m.; November 12, 2008, 7:25 a.m.; November 18, 2008, 7:00 a.m., 10:00 a.m. (Robert Dana's op ed column; comment on Daily Iowan story); November 20, 2008, 6:30 a.m. (The Gazette editorial); November 21, 2008, 11:30 a.m. (shock and awe from UN support)
"Dead From Prairie Lights" -- The Sequel
[Editorial cartoon credit: The Press-Citizen's talented Bob Patton; "Prairie Lights, Unplugged," Posted November 11, 2008, 4:05 p.m. CST, published November 12, 2008, p. A18.]
November 21: "Shock and Awe": The IPI terrorists have dug in and show no signs of being moved by the surge of support for "Live From Prairie Lights."
They've left the show's supporters no option but to appeal to the United Nations for assistance. Thankfully, notwithstanding the UN's obligations in the Democratic Republic of Congo at the moment, UNESCO has not only responded to the supporters' appeal, but done so with dispatch. Chris Rhatigan, "Iowa City a 'City of Literature;' First American city designated by UNESCO," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 21, 2008, p. A1:
"The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, or UNESCO, has designated Iowa City as the world's third City of Literature. It is the first American city to be awarded with the distinction. It also becomes part of UNESCO's Creative Cities Network, which includes major world cities like Berlin, Buenos Aires, Seville and Montreal."
If this UN bunker-buster isn't enough to shake some sense into Iowa Public Radio, I've been told the "Live From Prairie Lights" supporters have already received some positive response from the feelers they've sent out to the Vatican regarding possible intercession by the Pope. (And see, Mary Harrington, "Iowa City Named World's Third City of Literature," The Daily Iowan, November 21, 2008, p. A1 [headlined in the print edition as, "IC Officially Literary; Iowa City is now a City of Literature, Joining Just Two Others Areas Globally"].
Hopefully the IPI "senior team" will come to recognize the distinction, eventually pressed upon our President and his approach to his unprovoked invasion of Iraq, between steadfastness of purpose and dumb-stubborn.
IPI Senior Team: Bring back "Live From Prairie Lights" and this blog will award you a "Hats Off Award" for maturity. Otherwise, if you won't respond to the United Nations you're going to be confronting God Herself.
November 20: The "coalition of the willing" expands, and "the surge" presses on against the terrorists of IPI, with The Gazette's editorial this morning:
They told us this could happen, but it hurt when Iowa Public Radio announced last week it had canceled “Live from Prairie Lights” after an 18-year run. It’s just the kind of change listeners feared when state regents announced the merger of Iowa’s university radio stations a few years ago.
We understand programming changes will continue as Iowa Public Radio works to serve a statewide audience, but we want public radio decision-makers to remember it’s the local content that makes the public’s stations special. . . .
“Live from Prairie Lights” was uniquely Iowa City and uniquely Iowa — the kind of show we can’t buy on syndication and the kind of show that can only be supported by a public station.
IPR can’t base all its programming decisions on bringing 100,000 listeners to any given show. It also must support shows that can’t exist anywhere else. . . .
Editorial, "Keep the local in Iowa Public Radio," The Gazette, November 20, 2008, p. A4.
November 18: Like Treasury Secretary Paulson's bailout plans, the loss of "Live From Prairie Lights" is the theft that keeps on giving -- faceless, bean-counting bureaucrats, without consultation, steal our valuable, local, public radio program, but thereby stimulate a vigorous community discussion and re-commitment to our literary traditions. So, for the latest in the saga of "How many IPR Executives does it take to screw 'Prairie Lights,'" Robert Dana joins the team of Iowa's Poet Laureates who are modifying Eleanor Roosevelt's advice and lighting candles while cursing the darkness. Robert Dana, "Nothing else like 'Prairie Lights,'" Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 18, 2008, p. 9A ("[C]anceling this historic, intelligent show in favor of lighter fare with more listenership seems to be just one more step in the commercialization and general dumbing down of Iowa Public Radio. . . . Put simply, the present brain trust of IPR has no real sense of the literary value of Iowa City, of the University of Iowa and its writing programs or of 'Live from Prairie Lights." Nor of its pervasive influence in Iowa and elsewhere in the world. Or IPR knows and really doesn't care, preferring to believe in dollar signs and statistics.").
And, speaking of lighting candles, the following comment appeared this morning on The Daily Iowan's site in connection with its earlier story about the cancellation:
"posted 11/18/08 @ 1:24 AM CST
"This is really unfortunate. I first caught Live from Prairie Lights back in the mid-90s when I was living in Arkansas - the show used to be syndicated in a handful of markets around the country, and I never missed it. I ended up living in Iowa City for about 5 years, and attended maybe 50 or 60 readings live. Since leaving, I catch the show almost every week via the Internet.
"I can only hope that this isn't some harbinger of the end of Prairie Lights as well (I still wear my now very faded T-shirt proudly). I'll light a candle tonight for the independent book sellers everywhere."
November 12: Yesterday's blog entry, below, inspired by Iowa Public Radio's cancellation of "Live From Prairie Lights," dealt with the history of educational radio in general and WSUI in particular, the original mission of these stations, and what I believe to be the unfortunate consequences of decades of deviation from that mission -- for which the death of "Live From Prairie Lights" is only the latest example.
Given the rather substantial amount of interest in the subject, including the number of hits on the blog yesterday, I'm going to retain it as today's entry as well.
Since then, in addition to Bob Patton's editorial cartoon, above, the Press-Citizen has entered the fray, again, with a lengthy and thoughtful evaluation of its own: Editorial, "A chance to do more with Iowa City's strong literary relationships," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 12, 2008, p. A18, noting, among other things, the irony of the literary program's cancellation "At a time when UNESCO is almost ready to designate Iowa City as a 'City of Literature.'" (And see this morning's letter, Judy Hendershot, "IPR No Longer Serving Our Needs," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 12, 2008, p. A18.)
It might also have mentioned in this connection the local "Stories Project." I (and the Project's leaders themselves) have serious questions about it. Nicholas Johnson, "Tell Me a Story: The Stories Project," August 30, 2008. So I don't mean this reference to be either "endorsement" or "opposition." But it is further evidence of the extent to which local residents think of themselves as a literary community, and would like others to think of them that way as well.
Yesterday's blog entry focused on Iowa Public Radio's Jonathan Ahl (check out his blog at http://ahlthingsconsidered.blogspot.com/) simply because his was the name associated with the cancellation in the press. At 12:07 p.m. yesterday he added a comment, below, explaining that the decision was, in fact, made by the "unanimous IPR senior team." It's not clear to me whether that makes the program's death sentence better or worse in terms of the concerns I and others have raised, but it's certainly understandable why he would not want to take Ahl of the responsibility for it.
At 2:32 p.m. he added another comment, below, saying, "To be clear, I agree with most of the philosophies and positions that you lay out in this blog."
As the Press-Citizen reports, however, agreement with "philosophies" is unlikely to be translated into a reassessment of IPR's pragmatic dilemmas or program preferences.
I am not a radio program creator or producer, but as a listener it seems to me there is a distinction between what I will call the category of "magazine programming," such as NPR's "Morning Edition" and the afternoon "All Things Considered," and IPR's "The Exchange" and "Talk @ 12," on the one hand, and what I will call "subject specific programming," such as "On the Media," "Car Talk," and "Speaking of Faith." It is noteworthy that, after a quick look at the WSUI schedule I don't see any subject specific programming being produced by IPR -- except for "Live From Prairie Lights." And now that is to be cancelled. If this is more than a coincidence it might be something the "IPR senior team" would want to rethink some time.
As mentioned in yesterday's entry, below, the BBC runs circles around American radio -- NPR as well as commercial -- by any and all measures, so it may not be totally useful to choose it as a benchmark. But it's nonetheless both fair and relevant to note that among the BBC World Service's 58 programs listened to by citizens around the world on all continents is its literary program, "World Book Club."
Coming up with a program format that is both sufficiently substantive to avoid embarrassment for an "educational" radio station, and sufficiently interesting to hold an audience, is not easy. I don't mean to pretend that it is.
But it is inconceivable to me, given Iowa City's resources, that it would be impossible to come up with a successful program with a literary focus.
Distinguished writers from around the world are in residence as part of the UI "International Writing Program" -- indeed some of them are on the Press-Citizen's op ed page this very morning. More writers are here for the "Iowa Writers Workshop" two-year residency program. There are other writers who make Iowa City their home. There are the professors who work with these programs. There are the authors whom the book publishers are happy to send here to speak, sign, and sell books -- formerly as a part of "Live From Prairie Lights." Most of the heavy hitter lecturers who are brought to campus are also authors. There are innovative programs teaching writing -- a need throughout Iowa's schools -- in our K-12 schools, and university (including our law school). There would be reports on the progress of the "Stories Project."
As I say, it is inconceivable that there is not somehow, some way, to draw upon all of these resources (and the more creative ideas from those whose profession it is to come up with creative programming ideas) to come up with a successful literary program from one of the world's few, and great, "cities of literature."
In the 1930s most radio programs were broadcast before live audiences -- as are some videotaped situation comedy TV shows today. "A Prairie Home Companion" and "Michael Feldman's 'Whad'ya Know?'" are two examples of that old model carried by IPR. The only locally produced audience radio shows that immediately come to mind are Ben Kieffer's "Java Blend" -- and "Live From Prairie Lights." So that's another reason why killing "Live From Prairie Lights" will be a significant loss in the IPR offering.
Here is the blog entry as it appeared yesterday morning, November 11:
__________
Jonathan Ahl, Iowa Public Radio's News Director, arrived in Iowa from out of state less than four months ago. However, he feels he already knows enough about Iowa, Iowa City, and the University of Iowa's role in the history of broadcasting, to kill one of the most uniquely creative and educational radio programs to come out of this literary community: "Live From Prairie Lights." Peter Gustin, "IPR kills 'Live from Prairie Lights,'" Daily Iowan, November 10, 2008, A1.
"Live From Prairie Lights" was a community event -- whether you went to the talk while it was being broadcast, or listened from home. It got folks into an independent bookstore (as distinguished from Wal-Mart's book selection or those of the chains). It gave authors and publishers a little more of a chance to make it in this electronic age. It gave readers a chance to meet the authors, buy their books, and get their autograph, in a social setting where they could visit with neighbors with similar interests.
Of course, once the likes of Jonathan Ahl decided that a program that included "live" in its name could just as well be taped and broadcast at off-peak times, needless to say the program lost some of its allure and role in the community and in the world of books.
Its recently announced death is reminiscent of the fate of the news anchor, in Paddy Chayefsky's 1976 movie "Network": "Howard Beale, the first person in the history of television to be killed for bad ratings."
For that is apparently the crime that prompted Judge Ahl to unilaterally hand down the death sentence for this extraordinary program. See Jeff Charis-Carlson, "'Live from Prairie Lights' no longer," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 10, 2008, p. A11 (an interview with Ahl). For a contrary view see this morning's op ed column, Marvin Bell, "Some dim bulbs at public radio," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 11, 2008, p. A9.
WSUI-AM was not only one of the nation's first educational radio stations, it was one of the country's first radio stations, period. ("WSUI had its beginning in 1919 in the basement of the University of Iowa Physics Building. Starting with the operation of a 10-watt transmitter under the call sign 9YA, the station is the oldest educational broadcasting station west of the Mississippi River, making the University of Iowa a pioneer in public broadcasting.") Not incidentally, the University of Iowa also played a major role in the early development of television.
Educational AM radio stations, and subsequently those located on the FM frequencies we set aside for "educational" FM stations (such as KSUI-FM) were to have four characteristics:
1. An extension of the educational mission of the university, providing educational programming for Iowans who are not, as well as those who are, enrolled as students
2. Local programming, drawing from, and designed to serve, the needs, tastes and interests of its community of license
3. Stations operated under the supervision of, and financially supported by, their licensees: a university or other educational institution
4. Programming and announcements devoid of ties to commercial institutions or commercialism
This Friday, November 14, will mark the 86th anniversary of the first broadcast from the BBC. The man who set its tone, and served as its director-general from 1922 to 1938, Lord John Reith, "envisaged an independent British broadcaster able to educate, inform and entertain the whole nation, free from political interference and commercial pressure." "History of the BBC."
The BBC has, for the most part, held fast to that mission over the years. Its "World Service" radio remains, today, not only one of the best but sometimes the only, source for American listeners looking for in-depth reporting of the really important stories not only from Europe, Asia, and Africa, but from America as well. From "Global Business" to "From Our Own Correspondent" the BBC really has no equal.
WSUI, or rather 9YA as it then was, was already on the air when Lord Reith's BBC began broadcasting.
During the 1920s Iowa's own Herbert Hoover, then Secretary of Commerce, called a series of "radio conferences" in Washington that laid the foundation for what became the standards applied by the Radio Commission of 1927 -- ultimately to become the Federal Communications Commission in 1934.
Of course we went about the structuring and regulation of the broadcasting industry, and the ultimate creation of "educational broadcasting," in our own uniquely American way. But there was a remarkable level of agreement around the world as to the potential, and responsibility, of broadcasters.
Take the matter of commercialization.
Then-Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover's oft-quoted objection was, "It is inconceivable that we should allow so great a possibility for service [for news, for entertainment, for education] to be drowned in advertising chatter." Herbert Hoover, The Memoirs of Herbert Hoover: The Cabinet and the Presidency 140 (1952), quoted in Erik Barnouw, A Tower in Babel: A History of Broadcasting in the United States 96 (1966). Apparently the broadcasters and other members of the first Radio Conference agreed. Their Recommendation III.E. provided, "It is recommended that direct advertising in radio broadcasting service be absolutely prohibited . . .." Report of Department of Commerce Conference on Radio Telephony, Rad. Serv. Bull., May 1, 1922. See Nicholas Johnson, "Forty Years of Wandering in the Wasteland," Federal Communications Law Journal, May 2003, p. 521, 527-28, n. 17.
WSUI once broadcast classes, live from lecture halls on campus (including my father's popular "general semantics" course). Such use of WSUI was, presumably, considered a part of the University's mission of providing education, for free, to those well beyond its campus.
WSUI's operations were financed by the Iowa Legislature and University of Iowa -- not commercials ("corporate underwriting"). As legislators and university administrators increasingly failed to see the value of this asset, they cut its funding (and, not incidentally, later sold off WOI-TV in Ames). With no alternative, programs were increasingly interrupted to pitch products and services -- not to mention "week-long commercials" ("pledge drives") begging for funds.
Before the arrival of National Public Radio the programs were in large measure of necessity, as well as by design, "local." Now the distinctive local qualities of WSUI, WOI and KUNI, and their sister stations, have been deliberately destroyed with the creation of something called "Iowa Public Radio" run by faceless and heartless bureaucrats who know little of these stations' history, mission, and contribution -- and seemingly care less.
Killing "Live From Prairie Lights" is only the latest evidence of the extent to which those entrusted with responsibility for the protection, preservation and healthy growth of this precious if fragile institution have increasingly failed it over the years.
(As evidence that we're not doing much better with today's technology, the ability to deliver education "online" -- an idea I pushed to no avail 25 years ago for the UI -- see Erin Jordan, "Professors collect big bucks for online classes," Des Moines Register, November 9, 2008. I fear the "solution" now in place carries with it as many difficulties as the supposed "problem.")
Ratings
"Ratings" are an appropriate metric for commercial broadcasting, stations in the business of selling their audience (the product) to the advertiser (the consumer) at a cost-per-thousand (audience members) in an effort to maximize profit.
They are not an appropriate metric for educational, expressly "non-commercial," radio.
Public access cable television programming had to deal with the same issue. Some programmers in the early days, not to mention city and cable company administrators, wanted to create network-entertainment-style programming and measure its contribution by ratings. They came to see that there were other values from community-members-created video programming than mere audience numbers -- including such things as conversations among retirement home residents at various locations around an urban area, church services thereby available to shut-ins, the ability of the fire chief to hold remote "staff meetings" with all of a community's fire houses, or even smoke detectors in cable subscribers' homes connected by cable television (that could, not incidentally, reduce fire insurance rates for a community by as much as 50%).
Should C-SPAN be canceled because its ratings are less than those for ABC's "Dancing With the Stars"? Of course not. It serves an entirely different purpose. So it is with educational radio stations. They're not in the business of selling their audiences to advertisers and their programming should not be evaluated by administrators as if they were.
I have two major points to make about ratings -- illustrated, you will not be surprised to discover, with two stories.
CBS' "60 Minutes." Early in its history CBS executives wanted to cancel "60 Minutes." Why? Well, of course: "bad ratings." As an FCC commissioner I had no right or power to be dictating network programming. But I knew a hit when I saw one, and encouraged the network to stick with it, give it time. What happened? Here's how the program's executives relate the history today:
60 Minutes, the most successful broadcast in television history, celebrates its 40th anniversary in September 2008. Offering hard-hitting investigative reports, interviews, feature segments and profiles of people in the news, the CBS News magazine has been the number-one program a record five times. It also finished among Nielsen's annual top-10 list for 23 consecutive seasons - a record never even approached by another program. 60 Minutes finished the 2007-08 season as the most-watched news broadcast, making Nielsen's weekly top-10 list 16 times over 33 telecasts.
The program has won more Emmy Awards than any other primetime broadcast, including a special Lifetime Achievement Emmy. It has also won virtually every other broadcast journalism award, plus 15 Peabody awards for excellence in television broadcasting. In the last year, 60 Minutes has won all of the major awards: four Emmys, a DuPont-Columbia University Silver Baton, a Peabody, an RTNDA Edward R. Murrow award, an RFK Journalism Award and a Sigma Delta Chi award from the Society of Professional Journalists.
60 Minutes was created in 1968 by Don Hewitt and premiered on CBS September 24th of that year.
"Program Facts," CBS' "60 Minutes."
My point is obviously not that if only we'll stick with "Live From Prairie Lights" long enough it will someday have ratings equivalent to "60 Minutes." So what is my point?
The moral of this story is simply that hasty executive decisions to cancel shows (or murder Howard Beale) for "bad ratings" often become self-inflicted wounds. And if that is sometimes true for commercial broadcasting it is certainly true for educational broadcasting.
I never had that many conversations with Richard Nixon. He was not my favorite president. But I recall, in connection with this "Live From Prairie Lights" flap, an insight of his that stuck with me over the years. We were talking about media power in general, and public broadcasting in particular, when he said, "Do you realize that I can reach more people from the smallest radio station in Mississippi than if I were to speak in the local stadium?"
It influenced my accepting invitations to appear as a guest on what were then the TV networks' late night talk shows. In order to reach as many people as would see one of those shows, I calculated, I'd need to speak to a room-full of people at 8:00 a.m., 9:00 a.m., and every hour throughout the day, five days a week, 52 weeks a year -- for three hundred years!
The Daily Iowan, linked above, reports that "Live From Prairie Lights" has an audience of 1600. As Marvin Bell writes this morning, linked above, it may be far more than that. Audience measurement is a notoriously inexact science, especially when dealing with listeners in fairly small markets. But put that aside.
Jonathan Ahl told Jeff Charis-Carlson, also linked above, that another of the reasons for the program's cancellation was the cost of its staff. This is a staff, I should note, of primarily one: Julie Englander.
OK. Now for the comparison.
I am a big fan of the UI Lecture Committee's efforts in bringing headliners to our campus. (Disclosure: I used to do a lot of public lecturing myself through the Leigh Lecture Bureau in New York and Princeton.)
We often get audiences of 1000, 1500, or more to attend these lectures in the IMU ballroom. The lectures are free to the audience, but not cheap for the committee. Lecture fees of $10,000 to $25,000 are common. We paid, I believe, $35,000 for Karl Rove.
You get my point, right?
I don't know what we're paying Julie Englander, but I can't imagine it's many multiples of a single lecture fee. And how many people are we reaching? Roughly what we reach with a public lecture. And what do we have to pay these "lecturers"? Zilch, nada, zero.
How many professors do we have who are lecturing to 1600 students at a time?
Utilizing another technology, we are apparently paying them $280 per online student.
If Julie were paid $280 for every member of her 1600 audience for whom she is "teaching literature," she would be pulling down $448,000 per semester.
By university standards for class enrollment -- or even public lectures -- 1600 is an enormous audience.
Any way you look at it -- by the numbers, from the perspective of history, or with the application of a little common sense -- canceling "Live From Prairie Lights" is a dumb move from what Marvin Bell calls "a dim bulb." "And that's all she wrote."
Let's hope it's not "Ahl he wrote."
# # #
November 8, 2008, 5:35 a.m.
Why America Needs a Jobs Program:
Because When Your Automobile (Industry) is in the River
It Makes More Sense to Go For the Shore
Than to Continue Bailing it Out
Executive Summary: This morning's (and probably this weekend's) blog entry is stimulated by President-Elect Obama's comments yesterday (November 7) regarding the need for taxpayers to transfer billions of dollars of their own money to the automobile industry.
My own view -- buttressed by the New York Times' reports yesterday and today, below, regarding (1) the automobile industry (especially General Motors), (2) retail sales, and (3) unemployment -- is that the best interests of the business community, as well as the American people, will be served by providing public jobs programs, and economic support to the unemployed, rather than continuing to pour billions of dollars into failed and failing businesses.
Discussion.
The Automobile Industry.
Yesterday Obama said, "I have made it a high priority for my transition team to work on . . . policy options to help the auto industry."
If you haven't yet learned the vocabulary, "policy options" is Obama-speak for transfers of, ballpark, $50-100 billion of additional taxpayers money to GM and Ford.
It seems to me when the ship is going down the better part of wisdom is to put the passengers on the lifeboats rather than continue bailing.
GM went through nearly $7 billion in cash in the course of losing over $4 billion during the last three months! Pouring more billions of taxpayers' money into this bottomless pit can do little more than postpone the agony for three or four more months.
GM's problem is that customers don't want to buy its cars. In part that's because for decades GM has been making cars customers didn't want to buy -- while Toyota, manufacturing cars in the U.S., providing jobs for American workers, has been capturing ever-larger shares of the market. Indeed, if the taxpayers are going to be forced into the automobile business wouldn't they get more bang for their billions of bucks by giving them to Toyota, a company that makes cars they do want to buy? Wouldn't that provide more jobs, and get more dollars flowing through the economy? As long as we're going socialist, doesn't it make more sense to reward business success than failure?
But another major part of GM's problem is that laid-off GM workers, and the 10 million other unemployed Americans, don't have the money to buy anybody's cars right now (or see higher priorities for the limited funds they do have).
I'm fully aware of the jobs involved in GM's dealerships and suppliers. But there's little likelihood much of the billions given to GM (whether "loans" unlikely to be repaid, "bailouts," or money said to be for "re-tooling" or research on more energy efficient vehicles) is going to find its way to UAW workers, suppliers and dealers -- unless GM would be stupid enough to increase its production, and inventories, of cars that neither its dealers nor its customers can afford. (And UAW members pension funds are guaranteed by the taxpayers anyway.)
If the automobile industry is the lynch pin to economic recovery the new president thinks it is, the solution is to get more money into the hands of consumers -- especially the unemployed (and soon to be unemployed). Enabling auto executives to have tens of billions of additional dollars to spend at their discretion in postponing bankruptcy doesn't strike me as a solution to anything except perhaps helping to hold Michigan's electoral votes for the Democrats in 2012.
Other industry sectors -- especially retail.
Another problem with Washington's willy-nilly giveaways, aside from the fact that they are unfair, don't work and will ultimately bankrupt our nation, is that they are irrational.
As the New York Times reports, below, "Consumer spending represents two-thirds of the nation’s economic activity, and analysts said the striking sales declines at retailers almost certainly portended an extended, severe recession. . . . Sales at the nation’s largest retailers fell off a cliff in October, casting fresh doubt on the survival of some chains . . .." ("Neiman Marcus . . . dropped nearly 28 percent in October . . ..")
Now I have no more enthusiasm for bailing out, or subsidizing, the retail sector than I have for the automobile sector. If Target's sales are down (as they are), I'm not confident that giving its executives billions of dollars will increase its "discretionary spending" sales to customers who barely have money for food.
But if Obama is looking for economic sectors to which to transfer taxpayers' money, wouldn't the one that represents "two-thirds of the nation's economic activity" make more sense in a recession/depression than bailing out the one that makes $30,000 new vehicles?
And surely there are other sectors of the economy that would like to nominate themselves.
Why We Need a Jobs Program
Look at the numbers. There are now over 10 million unemployed. Unemployment stands at 6.5 percent, and is projected to go to 8 percent next year -- 22 percent of whom have been out of work for more than six months, something we haven't seen for a quarter-century. The rates are increasing. Of the 1.2 million jobs lost this year 284,000 were in September and 240,000 in October.
In the 1950s over 50 percent of the unemployed received benefits; today, because of various restrictions, only 32 percent qualify -- more unemployment, more holes in the safety net.
The Times reports, "'The economy is slipping deeper into a recessionary sinkhole that is getting broader,' said Stuart G. Hoffman, chief economist at PNC Financial Services Group in Pittsburgh."
Put it all together and the answers seem, to me, rather obvious.
You can't improve business (profits, returns to shareholders, executive compensation) without improving retail sales; you can't improve retail sales without putting money in the hands, and confidence in the heads, of potential consumers; and unemployed consumers don't have money unless they are provided either unemployment compensation or wages from a public sector job (in an economy with a shrinking private sector).
Given our rotting, unattended, infrastructure (roads, bridges, pipelines, schools) resulting from the last 30 years of "tax cuts" it seems to me, given the same amount of money, that using it to create "jobs" makes more sense than providing it for "unemployment compensation."
But either makes more sense than trying to turn an economy around with "trickle down" -- whether tax cuts for the rich, or bailouts for the rich.
Referenced Times articles below:
President-Elect Obama's News Conference
Here is an excerpt from a transcript of President-Elect Obama's news conference of November 7, 2008, regarding automobile industry bailouts:
The news coming out of the auto industry this week reminds us of the hardship it faces, hardship that goes far beyond individual auto companies to the countless suppliers, small businesses and communities throughout our nation who depend on a vibrant American auto industry.
The auto industry is the backbone of American manufacturing and a critical part of our attempt to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
I would like to see the administration do everything it can to accelerate the retooling assistance that Congress has already enacted. In addition, I have made it a high priority for my transition team to work on additional policy options to help the auto industry adjust, weather the financial crisis, and succeed in producing fuel-efficient cars here in the United States of America.
And I was glad to be joined today by Governor Jennifer Granholm, who obviously has great knowledge and great interest on this issue.
I've asked my team to explore what we can do under current law and whether additional legislation will be needed for this purpose.
"Transcript: 'I'm Going to Confront This Economic Crisis,' Obama Says," CNN, November 7, 2008, 2:59 CST.
General Motors Economic Condition
General Motors is edging closer to running out of money, as slumping sales and deteriorating economic conditions drove the automaker to a larger-than-expected loss of $4.2 billion in the third quarter . . ..
The carmaker’s results came on the heels of similar dismal quarterly earnings from the Ford Motor Company . . ..
G.M. said its revenue in the third quarter declined 13 percent . . . on weak demand in its core North American and European markets. . . .
The company also reported that it burned through $6.9 billion in cash during the quarter, and it ended the period with just $16.2 billion. The rapid depletion of its cash puts G.M. perilously close to dropping below the level needed to finance its operations. . . .
G.M. said that it “will fall significantly short” of the cash needed to run its business in the first half of 2009 unless economic conditions improve and the company gets access to financial aid from the federal government. . . .
The rating agency Standard & Poor’s cut G.M.’s debt by one grade to CCC+ on Friday, citing concerns about its cash supply. . . .
Earlier, the Ford Motor Company said that it burned through $7.7 billion in cash in the third quarter . . ..
Ford’s automotive business lost $2.9 billion in the quarter, and the company announced more cuts to conserve cash . . ..
Over all, Ford said . . . Excluding . . . one-time items, the company lost $2.7 billion. . . .
The company will eliminate as many as 2,200 salaried jobs by January . . ..
Underscoring the dire circumstances, the chief executives of G.M., Ford and Chrysler met with Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, and Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, on Thursday about an emergency loan package. The meeting focused on a request by automakers for up to $25 billion in loans to help the companies get through the worst vehicle market in 15 years and avoid bankruptcy protection. . . .
The loan request is in addition to $25 billion in low-interest loans administered by the Energy Department to assist automakers in developing more fuel-efficient vehicles.
In his news conference Friday afternoon in Chicago, President-elect Barack Obama urged the current administration to do everything possible to accelerate disbursement of $25 billion for the vehicles. . . .
Ford is also using up cash at a surprising rate — $7.7 billion in the third quarter. . . .
The automaker is moving to increase its cash by as much as $17 billion by cutting more jobs . . ..
Bill Vlasic and Nick Bunkley, "Carmakers Report Losses as They Burn Cash," New York Times, November 7, 2008.
The Retail Sector
Sales at the nation’s largest retailers fell off a cliff in October, casting fresh doubt on the survival of some chains and signaling that this will probably be the weakest Christmas shopping season in decades.
The remarkable slowdown hit luxury chains that sell $5,000 designer dresses as badly as stores that offer $18 packs of underwear, suggesting that consumers at all income levels are snapping their wallets shut.
Sales at Neiman Marcus, the luxury department store, dropped nearly 28 percent in October compared with the same month last year. . . .
Of the more than two dozen major retailers that reported on Thursday, most had sales declines at stores open at least a year, the majority of the decreases in double digits. . . .
Consumer spending represents two-thirds of the nation’s economic activity, and analysts said the striking sales declines at retailers almost certainly portended an extended, severe recession. The reports highlighted once again the depth of the economic problems confronting President-elect Barack Obama.
Consumers are cutting their spending for many reasons, but high on the list is the weakening employment picture. . . .
“October was every bit as bad we feared,” said John D. Morris, a retailing analyst with Wachovia. “Maybe worse. October’s numbers were so disappointing, particularly in the final week, which had to leave retailers in a state of high anxiety going into the holiday season.” . . .
A few retailers have strong balance sheets, but many do not, and with credit hard to find they can ill afford a disastrous Christmas season. Analysts said they expected a new wave of bankruptcies after the first of the year.
Stephanie Rosenbloom, "Retailers Report a Sales Collapse," New York Times, November 6, 2008.
Unemployment
The American economy lost another 240,000 jobs in October, the government reported Friday, as cash-strapped consumers pulled back and businesses hunkered down, intensifying the distress gripping much of the country.
The unemployment rate spiked to 6.5 percent from 6.1 percent, the highest level since 1994. Many analysts now expect unemployment will reach 8 percent by the middle of next year.
Coupled with revisions to September’s data — which now show a loss of 284,000 jobs . . . — the economy has shed 1.2 million jobs since the beginning of the year. . . .
“The economy is slipping deeper into a recessionary sinkhole that is getting broader,” said Stuart G. Hoffman, chief economist at PNC Financial Services Group in Pittsburgh. “The layoffs are getting larger, and coming faster. We’re likely to see at least another six months of more jobs reports like this.” . . .
Democratic leaders in the House said this week that they would seek swift passage of $60 billion to $100 billion worth of measures that would extend unemployment benefits and food stamps, while aiding states whose tax revenues have plummeted. They would then pursue a broader package of measures that could reach $200 billion after Mr. Obama takes office in January.
The Bush administration has criticized Democratic proposals for immediate aid, raising the specter of a veto. . . .
The number of unemployed Americans increased by 603,000 in October to 10.1 million — the largest number since 1983. More than 22 percent of all unemployed people have been out of work for six months or longer — another level not reached in a quarter-century.
Only 32 percent of all unemployed people were drawing state benefit checks in October because of restrictions on eligibility for part-time workers and those who were not in their jobs long enough to qualify. More than half of all unemployed people drew benefits in the 1950s, and about 45 percent received state checks during the last recession in 2001.
“It’s a national shame, the state of our safety net,” said Andrew Stettner, deputy director of the National Employment Law Project in New York. “We need to be helping these families avert financial disaster, and help make up for the loss of consumer demand, and the best way we can do that is to get people unemployment checks.” . . .
The latest monthly snapshot of the jobs market reinforced how the economy remains gripped by a potent combination of troubles — plunging housing prices, tight credit and shrinking paychecks — with all three in a downward spiral.
Companies have been hiring tepidly and laying off workers throughout the year, as business has slowed, while cutting working hours for those on the payroll. That trend continued in October: The so-called underemployment rate — which includes people working part-time for lack of full-time positions and those who have given up looking for work — rose to 11.8 percent, up from 8.4 percent a year earlier.
“What you see now is this cascading of unemployment moving from hours cut to hiring freezes to layoffs,” said Jared Bernstein, senior economist at the labor-oriented Economic Policy Institute in Washington. “At this point, we have a very toxic combination of all of the above. There’s almost no economic activity out there that’s going to generate jobs right now. This is the front edge of the deeper trough of the recession. It’s going to get worse before it gets better.”
Wages have effectively shrunk for most workers, as rising costs for food and fuel have more than absorbed meager increases in pay. . . .
All of this came on the heels of the revised September data showing that 284,000 jobs were lost that month — the worst toll since November 2001, in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington.
Fewer people working translates into less spending power: Consumer spending dropped between July and September — the first quarterly decline in 17 years — further eroding the motivation for businesses to hire.
Recent days have offered fresh indications of trouble. On Thursday, major retailers reported a sharp pullback in sales in October, presaging what is likely to be the weakest holiday spending in many years.
The annual pace of auto sales fell off in October, down 15 percent compared to September, according to analysis from Goldman Sachs.
The widely watched Institute for Supply Management survey fell in October to depths last seen 26 years ago, reflecting shrinking industrial activity and suggesting weakening demand for goods as the economy slows. . . .
Many economists expect this picture to worsen. Though a $700 billion taxpayer-financed bailout has staved off fears of an imminent collapse and restored some order to the financial system, it has not persuaded banks to lend freely. Credit remains tight for businesses and homeowners. . . .
Peter S. Goodman, "Jobless Rate at 14-Year High After October Losses," New York Times, November 7, 2008.
Business Types Dominate Obama's "Economic Team"
Meanwhile, here's the list of persons on President-Elect Obama's economics team. By going to the New York Times site for this list, linked below, you can find out more about each one from links provided by the Times. Their bios are not my focus this morning, so I haven't done that -- with the result that what I'm about to say may be off the mark.
But it looks to me that, in terms of "economic expertise," nine of the 17 are primarily business persons (which is not to say they don't have some very practical understanding of "economics;" Buffett, Campos, Daley, Donaldson, Ferguson, Mulcahy, Parsons, Pritzker, Schmidt), three are primarily politicians (Bonior, Grandholm, Villaraigosa), and five combine an academic background and experience focusing on national economic policy (Reich, Rubin, Summers, Tyson, Volker).
Bringing these folks together for part of a day, and having them on display at the President-Elect's first news conference, primarily serves a public relations show and political purpose: it reassures the business community that it needn't panic from its fear there really will be "change," that Obama is getting his advice from folks who are familiar and "solid," no radical economic innovators there. There's a substantive benefit from such a calming move as well, when at least some of what's going on in an economic meltdown is mental.
There's also a substantive benefit from including business representatives, goodness knows.
And of course I have no reason to believe there is anyone in the group who is not selfless, intelligent, knowledgeable, ethical, and offering what he or she truly believes is in the nation's best interest when offering advice to the President-Elect.
But I would feel a little more confident of the group's advice if it included a little heavier weighting from those of the nation's academic and other economists with expertise in public finance -- along with at least one or two of those with less conventional thinking.
Here's the list:
DAVID E. BONIOR Academic; former Democratic Congressman from Michigan; John Edwards’s campaign manager.
WARREN E. BUFFETT Billionaire investor and chairman of Berkshire Hathaway; expected to take part by telephone.
ROEL C. CAMPOS Washington lawyer; former member of the Securities and Exchange Commission; former broadcasting executive.
WILLIAM M. DALEY Senior executive at JP Morgan Chase; former Commerce Secretary; chairman of Al Gore’s presidential campaign.
WILLIAM H. DONALDSON Former chairman of the S.E.C.; long career in investment banking, higher education and government.
ROGER W. FERGUSON Jr. Chief executive of TIAA-CREF, the private financial services company; former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve.
JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM Governor of Michigan.
ANNE M. MULCAHY Chairwoman and chief executive of Xerox.
RICHARD D. PARSONS Chairman of Time Warner; former banker.
PENNY S. PRITZKER Senior executive, Hyatt; national finance chairwoman for the Obama campaign.
ROBERT B. REICH Author, academic, former Labor Secretary.
ROBERT E. RUBIN Chairman of Citigroup; former Treasury Secretary.
ERIC E. SCHMIDT Chairman and chief executive, Google.
LAWRENCE H. SUMMERS Economist, academic; former Treasury Secretary.
LAURA D’ANDREA TYSON Academic; former chairwoman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisors and the National Economic Council.
ANTONIO R. VILLARAIGOSA Mayor of Los Angeles.
PAUL A. VOLCKER Former chairman of the Federal Reserve.
"Obama's Transition Economic Advisory Board," New York Times, November 7, 2008. And see the Times Web site, "The New Team: The 44th President," for "a series of profiles of potential members of the administration."
# # #
November 7, 2008, 8:30
President Obama: "It's the Economy"
In 1992 James Carville felt obliged to keep his candidate, Bill Clinton, "on message" with the famous wall sign that read, "It's the economy, stupid!"
It's still the economy for our newly elected president, but President Obama is reluctant to call anyone "stupid." He's just taken on Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff to do that.
("In the Clinton administration, he [Rahm Emanuel] was aggressive, frequently profane and instrumental in shaping domestic policy on issues like health care, welfare and trade. He earned the nickname Rahmbo for his determination and take-no-prisoners approach — an advantage when trying to bring a thorny issue to resolution, but a style that can be off-putting to those accustomed to gentility. . . . His manner can also create enemies, and Mr. Emanuel has ruffled the feathers of many on Capitol Hill, particularly black and Hispanic lawmakers." Carl Hulse, "Rahm Emanuel," New York Times, November 6, 2008.)
So today our new president is meeting with some 17 of his favorite economic advisers, following which he is scheduled to hold his first news conference since being elected. Jeff Zeleny and Jackie Calmes, "Obama, Assembling Team, Turns to the Economy," New York Times, November 6, 2008; John Eggerton, "Parsons, Schmidt on Obama Advisory Team; Former Time Warner chief, Google CEO named to president-elect's Economic Advisory Board," Broadcasting & Cable, November 7, 2008, 9:03 a.m. CT ("According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Parsons contributed to the campaigns of both Obama and John McCain, but gave OBama the maximum individual contribution of $4,600, while only $1,500 went to McCain.").
Here are some of the economic realities President-Elect Obama, his advisers -- and you and I -- are going to have to confront:
Economy Watch
Here's a very brief excerpt from the latest take on the global economic collapse by the International Monetary Fund. Although the organization focuses on national, rather than personal, finance the implications for each of us are clear. Unless you're planning national economic policy there's no need to master everything in this 321-page "book," but a scan of the Executive Summary might be at least informative, and possibly even useful, for each of us.
The world economy is entering a major downturn in the face of the most dangerous financial shock in mature financial markets since the 1930s. . . . The situation is exceptionally uncertain and subject to considerable downside risks. The immediate policy challenge is to stabilize financial conditions, while nursing economies through a period of slow activity and keeping inflation under control.
Global Economy under Stress
After years of strong growth, the world economy is decelerating quickly (Chapters 1
and 2). Global activity is being buffeted by an extraordinary financial shock and by still-high energy and other commodity prices. Many advanced economies are close to or moving into recession, while growth in emerging economies is also weakening. . . .
International Monetary Fund, "World Economic Outlook," October 2008 (321 pp.).
Meanwhile, the latest economic data from the United States, including unemployment (which it looks like, after today's report, will be at or over 1,000,000 for the first 10 months of this year alone), wages, hours and consumer spending, is consistent with the IMF's analysis:
The American economy lost another 240,000 jobs in October, the government reported Friday morning, the 10th consecutive monthly decline and a clear signal that an accelerating slowdown is assailing households and businesses.
The unemployment rate climbed to 6.5 percent , the highest level since 1994 and up from 6.1 percent the month before.
Adding to the gloom was a steep downward revision in payroll numbers for September. The Labor Department said that employers slashed 284,000 jobs that month, far higher than the 159,000 that was initially reported. . . .
Above all, the latest monthly snapshot of the jobs market reinforced how the economy remains gripped by a potent combination of troubles — plunging housing prices, tight credit and shrinking paychecks — with all three operating at once in a downward spiral.
Companies have been . . . cutting working hours for those on the payroll. Millions of Americans accustomed to borrowing against homes to finance spending have lost that artery of cash as home prices have fallen.
Wages have effectively shrunk for most workers, as rising costs for food and fuel have more than absorbed meager increases in pay. . . .
In October, weekly wages for rank-and-file workers . . . [grew] well below the rate of inflation. . . .
Consumer spending dropped between July and September — the first quarterly decline in 17 years — further eroding the motivation for businesses to hire. . . .
Many economists now expect the unemployment rate to reach 8 percent by the middle of next year, a level not seen in 25 years. Most forecasts envision the economy shrinking well into the next year and perhaps until 2010. . . .
The widely watched Institute for Supply Management survey fell in October to depths last seen 26 years ago, reflecting shrinking industrial activity and suggesting weakening demand for goods as the economy slows.
That weakness has gone global, as many other major economies also succumb to slowdown — from Spain and Britain to Japan and Brazil — and as financial crisis now snuffs out economic activity in much of the world. . . .
Many economists expect this picture to worsen as the consequences of the global financial crisis ripple out to businesses and households. . . . Credit remains tight for businesses and homeowners.
Peter S. Goodman and Michael M. Grynbaum, "Unemployment Rate at 14-Year High After Big October Losses," New York Times, November 7, 2008.
And who's watching out for us taxpayers? Not only is there not as much monitoring as I'd like to see regarding the corporate excesses by those companies we've been bailing out -- golden parachutes, bonuses, and multi-million-dollar salaries for the executives who brought on this economic disaster, not to mention the elaborate and expensive entertainment they provide themselves with our dollars, and their using money intended for loans to customers to simply merge themselves into even larger institutions -- but it now turns out we're going to be paying the lawyers who are defending those few who are actually being taken to court for their literal or figurative crimes.
When the government took over mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, taxpayers inherited more than just bad debts. They're also potentially on the hook for tens of millions of dollars in legal fees for the executives at the center of the housing market's collapse.
With the Justice Department investigating companies involved in the mortgage and financial meltdown, executives around the country are hiring defense lawyers. Like many large companies, Fannie and Freddie had contracts promising to cover legal bills for their executives.
When the Treasury Department delivered a $200 billion bailout to Fannie and Freddie, that obligation passed to the government, which may find itself paying for the lawyers defending the executives against the government's own prosecutors. . . .
Legal fees can add up quickly. After Freddie Mac restated its earnings in 2003, it became embroiled in several investigations and lawsuits. By the middle of 2005, the company had paid $16.8 million in legal fees for its executives and employees."
Matt Apuzzo, "Taxpayers May Pay Legal Bills for Mortgage Execs," Associated Press, November 7, 2008.
November 6, 2008, 7:30 a.m.
OK, Now What?
Why I Did, and Will, Support President Obama
My enthusiasm about President-Elect Obama's victory is as great as anyone's -- with the possible exception of those African-Americans who are my age or older. My seven years in Austin, Houston, and traveling throughout the deep south during the 1950s were far from their lifetimes of oppression, but the environment and what I witnessed of the ravages of segregation and discrimination were enough to open this white Iowa boy's eyes and heart, and provide a little more meaning and force to my singing of "we shall overcome some day" during the 1960s. We haven't yet reached Dr. Martin Luther King's mountaintop, but at least it's now a lot closer than it's ever been.
Besides, law professors tend to favor as presidents former law review editors -- even if what they edited was the Harvard Law Review. I just hadn't thought there were enough law professors to get Senator Obama elected, but delighted to find out just how wrong I was.
Finally, I noted yesterday ("Global Election Results: 'The Whole World is Watching,'" November 5) the importance of our elections to the citizens throughout the world who will be affected by it, and the beginning of end of the harm that the last administration's rhetoric and actions have done to our standing in the world. (See, e.g., The Kenya Times' stories; and see bottom of blog entry for a very moving first-hand report.)
Every world citizen's best interests are served by hoping for President Obama's success and doing what they can to bring it about -- but that is multiples more true for those of us in this country who are in the best position to be supportive and helpful.
Having said all of the above, however, there is a difference between "supportive and helpful" and "unthinking cheerleading."
The Citizen's Duty to Criticize Government
The case of New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), established the standard that public officials must meet in suing for defamation (that the defendant either knew his or her statement was false, or exhibited reckless disregard in ascertaining its truth). Justice Brennan, writing for the Supreme Court, noted the protection given public officials when they are sued for defamation (for example, for something said by a U.S. senator during a debate in the Senate). He continued, "Analogous considerations support the privilege for the citizen-critic of government. It is as much his duty to criticize as it is the official's duty to administer . . .."
Note that Justice Brennan is not just saying that we American citizens have a privilege to criticize government -- though of course we do -- he says that those who live in a country that was designed and is devoted to be governed by its citizens ("self-governing") have a duty to criticize their government.
Hopefully, this will be what we call "constructive criticism." Hopefully the critics will have learned somewhere along their educational path the difference between data, facts and the scientific method on the one hand, and opinion, inference, rumor, and ideology on the other. Hopefully they know that when obscenities or mean-spirited misrepresentations are hurled at officials they only reveal what is going on inside the speaker's head, rather than anything about the world outside.
That New York Times v. Sullivan protects some pretty awful political speech from defamation suits doesn't make it commendable citizenship.
President Obama as National Community Organizer-in-Chief
Don't get me wrong. My clear inclination is to believe that a President Obama will be speaking and acting out of a love of country, a superior intelligence, and desire to do what he believes to be in the best national interest. I believe that President Obama at his worst will be better than President George W. Bush at his best.
But my dream, my hope, is that he will be even better than that.
Based on the very first conversation I had with him, plus a number of his speeches since, my hope is that he will use us -- the 3.2 million contributors, the millions more of supporters whose email addresses he has, and such of the 64+ million who voted for him whom he can contact or otherwise motivate -- as the "community" for whom he is the "national community organizer." As the saying has it, "When the people lead their leaders will follow." Or, as President Roosevelt is said to have urged public interest advocates, "I totally agree with you; now you go out there and make me do it."
Part of what makes Washington "broken" (as even Senator John McCain would say), part of the reason Wall Street and K Street seem to have their way with the federal government, is that we -- you and I -- aren't "at the table" with the lobbyists and special interests to whom our local representatives and senators, as well as the White House, are too often beholden.
Without Us There is an Improbability of "Change"
Without a president who will encourage and enable our meaningful and effective participation it's not clear to me how we get from here to there, how "change" can be possible. "Reaching across the aisle," reaching for compromise, sounds good -- and is certainly better than Democrats and Republicans, or the legislative and executive branches, throwing rotten eggs at each other. But if the senator doing the reaching is heavily funded by, say, Big Pharma, and the hand he grabs is that of another senator heavily funded by Big Pharma, the result may improve legislative harmony but is unlikely to improve our access to health care.
So long as Big Pharma and Big Oil are drafting the legislation, and making the campaign contributions necessary to get it passed, on economic issues the next four years are going to look an awful lot like the last eight years.
As Common Cause finally learned after 30 years of trying, campaign finance reform legislation has to be passed by incumbents. And incumbents have little enthusiasm for changing a system that virtually guarantees the re-election of those incumbents who want to be re-elected. I see no indication that incumbents attitudes about this are going to change -- especially after witnessing the success of a presidential candidate who reversed course, rejected public financing, and sailed on to a $600 million victory.
So the only hope I see for meaningful change in the way Washington does business is for "the people to lead" -- hopefully with the encouragement, rather than the resistance, of the president who could be our "national community organizer."
When "Centrist" Becomes "Continuity" -- and Early Appointments
President Obama never promised to be, and has given us no indication of being, a populist or progressive. He offered little to no rhetoric of the Robert Kennedy variety regarding the needs of the poor (as distinguished from "the middle class"). He reversed his position on trade, and immunity for the telephone companies than illegally wiretapped their own American customers. He voted for the first $700 billion flawed bailout of Wall Street -- the source of much of his financial support. His healthcare proposal bears little similarity to the "universal, single-payer" systems of most industrialized nations; it retains the high administrative costs, CEO compensation, and corporate profits of the insurance and healthcare "industry."
I appreciate that there is a case to be made for continuity and against "change."
But to the extent you personally favor the notion of change one thing to keep an eye on are the early appointments. To the extent Bush's cabinet officers are kept on (Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has been mentioned in that connection along with keeping General General David Petraeus in place), or former Clinton officials are brought back (former Clinton Secretary of the Treasury Larry Summers has been mentioned for Treasury Secretary), that tends to suggest relatively more emphasis on continuity and less on change.
"Can't Tell the Players Without a Program": Clues From the Transition Team
Here are some names from the Washington Post of transition team members at this point to help you follow news from the personnel front as it unfolds (as many-to-most of them will presumably find their way into positions in the Administration after January 20).
Obama spent most of the day ensconced in a downtown office building where he held discussions with Vice President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.; John D. Podesta, who was President Bill Clinton's chief of staff; Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.); and senior campaign advisers. . . .
Leading the Obama-Biden Transition Project are Podesta; Valerie Jarrett, a close friend of Obama's; and Pete Rouse, Obama's former Senate chief of staff. . . . Obama . . . is expected to name his chief of staff, most likely Emanuel, this week. . . .
After weeks of speculation about who might fill the Treasury post, financial industry and Obama sources said the list includes Timothy F. Geithner, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and Lawrence H. Summers, who was Treasury secretary at the end of the Clinton administration and has been a close adviser to Obama on the economy.
Geithner has been deeply involved in the government's response to the nation's economic crisis since it began in September. While he has extensive knowledge of the financial system, he is not as well known to Obama as is Summers.
Obama could also draw from his core economic team, which includes former Treasury secretary Robert E. Rubin, former Federal Reserve chairman Paul A. Volcker, and Laura D'Andrea Tyson, who chaired Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers. . . .
Others suggested the possibility of a less conventional pick, perhaps a Wall Street name such as Jamie Dimon, chief executive of J.P. Morgan Chase. . . .
Beyond the Podesta-led troika, a separate team, headed by Mark Gitenstein and Ted Kaufman, will guide the transition process for Biden.
A senior transition staff will oversee day-to-day activities: Chris Lu, Obama's legislative director, will serve as executive director. Campaign communications director Dan Pfeiffer will move into the same role for the transition. Stephanie Cutter, Michelle Obama's chief of staff, will serve as chief spokesperson. Obama friend and think tank executive Cassandra Q. Butts will serve as general counsel, a job that will include vetting job candidates for ethical conflicts. Campaign chief of staff Jim Messina will become personnel director. Phil Schiliro, a Capitol Hill veteran, will run congressional relations.
The transition team advisory committee includes numerous Clinton veterans and allies of Obama and Biden. One member key to the economic planning is Michael Froman, a former chief of staff to Rubin at the Treasury Department during the Clinton years and an Obama classmate at Harvard Law School.
Anne E. Kornblut and David Cho, "Obama Team Shifts to Transition Mode; Bush Extends Invitation, Calls Historic Election 'Uplifting,'" Washington Post, November 6, 2008, p. A1.
And see, Jim McElhatton, "Big-time Obama fundraisers to aid transition," Washington Times, November 6, 2008 (e.g., "Donald Gips, a former top aide to Vice President Al Gore who helped the Obama campaign raise at least $500,000, will serve on an advisory board overseeing the Obama transition" -- along with the names of many more, including Valerie Jarrett).
_____
Here is a letter from someone I do not know, shared with me by a friend, that reveals a good deal of what the election of President Obama is doing to improve our image abroad:
My dear friends,
Today I have had to travel from the island of Borneo...from SABAH and the town of Kota Kinabalu. Then to Kualam Lumpur where I had a 5 hour lay over and finally arriving very late at night in Bangkok. The election has already begun....
Today, in honor of the election, I am wearing an Obama '08 button on my lapel. If the treatment and reaction throughout my day is any indication of what our world might become....I am overwhelmed with optimism. First, every single place I went, someone noticed the button and called out, "OBAMA!". There were international administrators from across the region at the Hotel. Many of them nodded and smiled, and even the non-Americans who reacted with huge enthusiasm. One man from Australia stopped me to talk politics for 10 minutes. The crew working behind the desk all gave a thumbs up...the taxi driver did not charge me for taking me to the airport.
I must explain that, once at the airport, I am one of very few Americans among Asians from all over this region. I might possibly be the only blond in either airport I have been in so far today, and won't see many if any Americans until Bangkok. I do not speak the language...thank goodness they speak English.
Upon seeing my button, everyone, without exception, smiles. I have received preferential treatment all day long. They didn't make me pay extra for a heavy bag, they treated me in short, like royalty. The stewardess told the pilot, who stood up in the cock pit to give me a thumbs up. Even the immigration official barely looked at my passport. He was much more interested in knowing an Obama supporter and what I thought would happen today.
When I was buying dinner at a very American McDonalds (the only place to get something to eat), the entire crew behind the counter (not one American) came to say kind words to me. The man who exchanged my money asked how I could do anything so far away from the USA. I told him, with some amount of pride, that I had voted by absentee ballot. He took my hand and said, "thank you so much for voting for Mr. Obama." There were actual tears in his eyes.
While waiting at the airport in Kota Kinabalu and girl about 9 years old saw my button. She smiled broadly. I said hello and she asked if I wanted Obama to win because she did and her whole family did and that that morning they said a prayer that he would. I told her that I thought Barack would like that a girl all the way in Kota Kinabalu said a prayer for him. She asked could I tell him that they were praying for him and I said I would send an email to his headquarters. She was so excited that she ran to tell her parents. Her father came over and asked me if I knew Obama. I told him I had seen him speak, but never met him. He said that his whole community was praying for Obama and that he appreciated that I would write an email to tell him. He took my hand and said, we are praying for all of the American people too. This was the second stranger to take my hand today. It was my turn to have tears in my eyes, because this man, who I didn't know, was completely sincere. I thanked him. He said, "all of us, together...do you understand?" I said, "All of us together." We parted...smiling!
I write this as I sit in the airport at Kuala Lumpur waiting for hours for the plane. The women who guard the doors have on muslim headdresses, orange pants outfits and lime green jerseys. They are shy and reserved, yet they give me the thumbs up, and quietly whisper, "Obama" as I walk by. There are Thai and Chinese, and Indonesians and Indians surrounding me...The languages, dress, foods are all interesting. And sitting right next to me is a Buddhist monk, in just his orangish/yellow robes and shaved head. He smiles broadly when I look at him. He says frankly, "I like Obama."
The man behind the counter is Malaysian. He asks if I voted and when I confirm I have he laughs really loud and says something to the other official sitting next to him. This man laughs too. They both look at me intently. The one, fighting to find the right english begins, "This is (something in Malay). I smile saying I don't understand. He looks at his colleague and rattles something in Malay...The man says just a minute. He gets out a book. It is an english translation book. He says something to the man and hands him the book...pointing to a line on the page. The 1st man turns back to me and says..."this is fan/tas/a/tic...fan-tas-aahhh-tic...how do you say?" I tell him, yes, he is right "Fantastic". They laugh again at their attempts. I laugh too. He stamps everything forcefully, "wham! wham! wham!" And then he says something none of these officials ever take time to say, "We hope you will come back and visit our country!" "Of course, I say, of course." I don't quite know how to explain the full meaning of his invitation. Americans haven't been at the top of the list for quite awhile and traveling around, it isn't hard to sense.
Our leaders reflect who we are as a country/nation. I have always been proud of my family and Oregon. I have not always been proud of our leaders and the choices they make. Today I am proud...I am proud of our country and I was tearful watching a top French official trying to explain to the BBC reporter why the whole world is watching this election and praying that Obama will become our president.
Well, thank you for letting me share. Tomorrow at 7am we head to the American Embassy gathering to watch the election results come in. We are attending with world leaders and diplomats. We are to dress "smart casual". It should be quite the experience...one I hope brings new hope to our country and the world.
# # #
November 5, 2008, 9:00 a.m.
"The Whole World is Watching!"
Millions of Americans watched the results coalesce last evening, from 1% returns until the time when it finally became safe to believe that Senator Obama had actually won.
There were the U.S. Senate and House races, in sum a "national election" of their own to watch, district and state at a time, by both those who wanted the evening to end with a divided government and those who did not.
And the local races, and issues: Here in Johnson County the voters' acceptance of the conservation bond was a big one for me -- and something of a cliff hanger, as the early returns had it passing by 70%, before it finally came to rest at 61% -- just barely over the 60% required. Given the enormous campaign by the nay-sayers, both in money and with their thousands of misleading Robo-Calls, it's a great tribute to the sense of voters in troubling economic times that they saw sufficient value in protecting the environment, preserving our land and water, providing more recreational use, and taking meaningful steps to reduce the economic loss from flooding that they were willing to take on an additional $20 million of property tax obligation ("$2.20 a month").
But when the television started showing the dancing in Kenya, I was reminded that the BBC World Service has been telling us for weeks that ours really was a global election. Everyone in the world is affected by whomever we may select as our president. And they know it. It's just that we don't let them vote. It's our own little "Vote locally, impact globally" exercise.
When the police began beating the demonstrators in the streets of Chicago during the Democratic National Convention there 40 years ago, the demonstrators chanted, "The whole world is watching!" And it was.
It was also watching this year, and last night -- a much more peaceful scene.
Before I went to bed, and again this morning, I turned to my "The Global Press" Web site to see just how many were watching.
Here's a sampling of the papers reporting on our election. The stories were almost universally positive -- sometimes enthusiastically so. Indeed, the caution it raises for me is that Obama's overwhelming success and impact contain the seeds of one of his greatest challenges: how to deal with the excessive, exaggerated, and sometimes wildly unrealistic, expectations of those who voted for him in this country, and those who wished they could have who live in other countries.
Here's the Newseum's collection of the front pages of the world's papers reporting our election.
Here are some of the papers I've been reading that report the "global story" of what we did yesterday:
Al Jazeera, Doha
Al Rafidayn, Baghdad
Asahi Shimbun, Tokyo
Dawn, Karachi
El Mercurio, Santiago
Iran Daily, Tehran ("World Hopes for a Less Arrogant America" -- "the globe geared up to celebrate a fresh start for America after eight wearisome years of George W. Bush")
Jerusalem Post, Jerusalem
Kenya Times, Nairobi
La Nacion, San José
Le Monde, Paris ("Les Etats-Unis ont surmonté les démons du passé")
New Straits Times, Kuala Lumpur
O Estado de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo
Pajhwok Afghan News, Kabul
People's Daily, Beijing
Pravda, Moscow ("Yet in choosing Obama, the people of America have opted to come back into the international fold. Welcome back, friends!" -- replacing last evening's headline, "The end of eight years of hell.")
South China Morning Post, Hong Kong
Times of India, New Delhi
__________
9:30 a.m. Having written the above, I now discover that the New York Times is once again showing off one of the advantages it has over bloggers: reporters around the world. For what they have to say about the world's reactions to what we've done, see "Reactions From Around the World," New York Times, November 5, 2008, 2:47 a.m. CT -- and don't miss the additional comments added by Times' readers from around the world to that Times' Web page.
# # #
November 3, 2008, 6:25 a.m.; November 4, 2008, 7:00 a.m.
VOTE!
. . . New Hampshire has
Obama Sweeps Dixville Notch, 15-6!
"[I]n northern New Hampshire . . . registered voters in Dixville Notch cast ballots in a matter of minutes just after midnight. Obama carried the town with 15 votes, while McCain took six. Obama also won the nearby town of Hart's Location, with 17 votes to McCain's 10 and write-in candidate Ron Paul's two." Mary Pat Flaherty, "New Hampshire Voters Cast First Election Day Ballots," Washington Post, November 4, 2008; 6:24 a.m. CT
How late will you have to stay up Tuesday night?
Polls can be, and sometimes have been, misleading. Until either Senator Obama or McCain goes over 270 electoral votes Tuesday night we won't know for sure who our next president will be. And no one can predict for sure how late we'll need to stay up to find out.
I share the nervousness of those pollsters who are a little apprehensive this morning about their numbers. Partly that's because I've always felt that no election's over until the votes are counted, litigated if necessary, and the Electoral College members have cast their votes. Partly that's because of past experience with youthful and first-time voters who are enthusiastic at rallies but then fail to vote. Partly it's anxiety that the so-called "Bradley Effect" may not be the thing of the past that we hope it is. And partly it's because last Saturday, during the night, I was tuning up and down the AM dial rather than just listening to the BBC World Service.
Traveling the country In the 1970s I would return to Washington warning the politicos about the commentary I was hearing on radio stations all across the country from this guy Ronald Reagan. There was nothing to balance his views. But he wasn't on the radio in the Washington, D.C., area so my warnings were largely ignored. In case you've forgotten, he later turned up in Washington as President of the United States.
The talk show hosts and callers are really scary. Forcefully presenting as "facts" about Senator Obama what they must know are lies. Hate speech, venom and slander that would subject them to enormous damages for defamation if he was not a public official/candidate/public figure. All swimming in a sea of ignorance.
One drifted off into religion and whether the Bible was literally accurate with regard to the six-day creation of the Earth. One of the more flexible callers suggested that, "while we think of a 'day' as the time it takes the sun to go around the earth" -- that's right "the sun to go around the earth" -- that a "day" for God could be the time it takes our solar system to go all around the galaxies.
Elections always remind me of a story told by one of my colleagues about the McGovern campaign. A student came rushing into his office and excitedly repeated, "McGovern's going to win! McGovern's going to win!" My colleague asked how he knew; to which the student replied, "Everybody I know is voting for McGovern."
Everybody you know may be voting for Senator Obama. But that ain't the same as "everybody." Those talk show callers and listeners are going to be voting on Tuesday, too. And there's a lot more of them than cross my path each day.
Senator Grassley thinks it will either be a landslide for Obama or a squeaker for McCain. Tuesday night could be a long one.
Political scientists and professional political advisers will be going over the returns for months. But we'll have some early clues -- at least as to who the ultimate winner is likely to be.
Here's a list of the eastern states and others that close their polls between 5:00 and 7:00 p.m. Central Time. Those with a * will be indications of the ultimate outcome -- especially if Obama is doing better than expected in rural areas, or McCain in urban areas. If one or the other is picking up a disproportionate share of the "swing states" it will be an indication that they will probably end up winning the presidency by the end of the evening.
Polls Closing, Central Time
[Source: CNN Election Center 2008]
* = states to watch for early clues regarding ultimate outcome (Real Clear Politics
is calling Georgia, Florida, Indiana, North Carolina and Ohio "toss-up" states. Virginia will also be a bell weather.)
5:00
* Indiana (ET counties)
Kentucky (ET counties)
6:00
* Florida (ET counties)
* Georgia
* Indiana
Kentucky
* New Hampshire (some towns 5:00)
South Carolina
Vermont
* Virginia
6:30
* North Carolina
* Ohio
West Virginia
7:00
Alabama
Connecticut
Deleware
District of Columbia
*Florida
Illinois
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
Missouri
New Jersey
Oklahoma
* Pennsylvania
Tennessee
7:30
Arkansas
8:00
Rhode Island
# # #
October 31, 2008, 7:30 a.m., 2:00 p.m.
Measuring Education's Value to Iowa
Examples of related blog entries:
Nicholas Johnson, "An Open Letter to Regents on 'Governance,'" April 17, 2007.
Nicholas Johnson, "Of Mission and Metrics: Iowa Universities Presidents' 'Performance Goals,'" October 24, 2008
If you're familiar with the two blog entries linked immediately above you can understand why I would be pleased to see the Regents turning their attention to "strategic planning." There are excerpts from this morning's stories below to fill you in on the details.
My comments and caveats would include the following:
o Under the standards of many gurus of governance this should be the Regents' full time job, not something for a couple days of brainstorming (October 30, and February 2). Much of what the Regents currently do involves a level of administrative micromanaging that conflicts with most governance models, is counterproductive, can usually be better done by the universities' presidents (or those to whom they've delegated the tasks), takes time away from what the Regents ought to be doing, with the result that both Regents and presidents are left with little or no guidance as to measurable goals.
o The current Board of Regents includes individuals with an impressive array of the education, skills and experience necessary to do their job. They should do it; without the use of and reliance upon "consultants." (Moreover, of lesser significance but worth noting, at least by my standards $15,000 for a couple days consulting is pretty generous.) This is hard work. But it shouldn't be -- actually it cannot be -- "delegated" to staff or consultants.
o If individual Regents would like a little outside guidance, knowledge of what other universities (and other institutions) are doing, what are thought to be "best practices" in institutional governance, the best way to get it is through self-education; work at it; internalize the skills. It's all out there on the Internet (not incidentally, for free). Want an analogy? Law students use "outlines" of courses. Those who buy and read commercial outlines are sometimes able to pass an exam (barely), but retain little. Those who make their own outlines from the book and class discussion not only do better on exams, they internalize the information, skills and analytical abilities that they continue to draw upon throughout their professional careers. Regents need to do the equivalent of making their own, individual outlines regarding the analytical skills and process necessary to the task of mission/strategic planning/goal setting.
o Strategic planning basics: metrics, metrics, metrics. Any institution needs some general notion of what it's about. But many institutions, whether school boards or universities, never get beyond such generalized "mission statements" and "strategic planning." That's been my primary complaint about past University of Iowa "strategic plans" (and more recently the Regents university presidents' "performance goals," see "Of Mission and Metrics," linked above). If the plan is to be actually used, if it is to have a meaningful impact on anything (rather than be merely printed, shelved, filed, and stuffed into a Web site somewhere), it needs to have some (a) measurable goals, with (b) mileposts of accomplishment, (c) that are in fact regularly assessed and measured according to a, say, monthly or quarterly schedule, (d) reported on publicly with total transparency, and (e) modified as appropriate. (Not incidentally, these then double as the bases for university presidents' "performance bonuses.") You get what you measure;" measure nothing, you'll get nothing. We've not been measuring much.
o Focus. I'm not at all troubled that the Regents' first effort, according to today's press reports, below, was a pretty scatter-shot exploration of a wide variety of possibilities. That's part of the process. That's constructive. But what it does illustrate is that (a) this is a long process requiring much more than a couple of days' effort. Indeed, as I indicated above, properly conceived this is the Regents' full time job, something that should be the first item on every agenda. And (b) that at the end of this long process there comes to be a need, ultimately, to focus on a handful of measurable, attainable goals (what John Carver calls "ends policies").
o Big picture. Regent Michael Gartner threw out the idea of lengthening the K-12 school year. Many educators think he's right about that; others point out the complexities. Our school schedule is still being dictated by the needs of 19th Century farmers to have their kids in the fields, working on the farms, during the summer months. Few of our K-12 students have those responsibilities today ("more's the pity," some of my generation may think). One of the reasons I ran for, and served on, the local school board was because I finally came to the conclusion that we could not do, as law professors, what should have been done to improve writing skills during the K-12 years.
My point? If you're really interested in the role of education in Iowa, its impact on anything (take your pick), it will be most productive to see higher education as but a small part of the overall effort, from pre-natal care for pregnant mothers-to-be, early childhood health care and pre-school education, K-12, community colleges -- as well as other institutions' efforts at training and education -- and not just "higher education." That's what, I'd guess, Regent Gartner was trying to suggest.
Note in this connection that the Iowa Code already urges as much: "The board [of Regents] shall: . . . Explore . . . the need for coordination between school districts, area education agencies, state board of regents institutions, and community colleges for purposes of delivery of courses . . .." Iowa Code, Sec. 262.9 (26).
o "The price of everything and the value of nothing." I don't deny that "productivity of the faculty and the cost effectiveness of academic programs" might be both measured and improved, and that "helping Iowa with economic development [and] job creation" have a role to play in a university's mission. After all, I'm the one calling for metrics. Richard Florida talks about the value of a "creative class" to economic growth (and what it takes for a community to attract such people), something directly related to education. But there are other than economic benefits for the individual and the community of a quality education, "lifelong learning," individuals' curiosity, appreciation of the arts, awareness of history, geography, other cultures, science, involvement in the passions of one's time, that are central (I believe) to a university's mission even though less capable of being measured. I would hope that this enormous value, and purpose of education, would not be lost in the rush to put a dollar value on everything done by a university.
Note in this connection that the Iowa Code provides that "The university of Iowa ['s] . . . object shall be to provide the best and most efficient means of imparting to men and women, upon equal terms, a liberal education and thorough knowledge of the different branches of literature and the arts and sciences, with their varied applications. It shall include [a college] of liberal arts . . .." Iowa Code, Sec. 263.1.
o Do we have "public universities"? Do we want them? With a mere $750 million of the universities' $4 billion -- 18+% -- coming from the state, there's some question whether the people and legislature of Iowa even have, let alone want, a "state university." Regent Gartner says even this modest "level of state support is not sustainable."
The average number of years of education thought basic for most citizens, and paid for with public funds (because of its benefit to the entire community and nation), has extended over time from third grade, to sixth grade, to eighth grade, to the full K-12 "high school diploma." Wouldn't you have to agree that if K-12 was necessary, say, 50 years ago, that K-16 (i.e., a four-year college education) would be its equivalent today? If so, what is the rationale for stopping the community benefit from the public funding of public education at K-12?
Initially state universities were created to provide free or radically reduced-cost education*; now they charge more in tuition than our nation's most expensive private colleges charged not that many years ago. Might the Regents and presidents at least explore the implications of a complete split, a candid recognition that these universities have become, in fact regardless of name, "private universities"? If that's a feasible idea, perhaps the State could then provide more adequate funding for the community college system, putting on it the primary responsibility for liberal arts education (along with its associate degree programs), leaving the newly-private universities to focus on graduate and professional education and advanced research.
_____
* 
The 1845 law establishing what became the University of Iowa and the Board of Regents (a) was expressly subject to revision and has of course been revised over the years, (b) uses the word "tuition" (though without specifying any amount, nor authorizing the Regents to collect it), and (c) does not expressly provide for "free tuition." However, it does speak in terms of the University being "equally accessible" to all, students being "freely admitted," and authorizes the Regents to "admit gratuitously."
"An Act to Incorporate the University of Iowa" of 1845 provides:
"Section 1. Be it enacted by the Council and House of Representatives of the Territory of Iowa, That a Seminary of Learning shall be, and the same is, hereby, established in Iowa City or vicinity thereof to be known by the name and style of the 'Iowa City University;' which shall be founded and maintained forever on the most liberal principles, being equally accessible to students of all religious denominations who shall be freely admitted to equal advantages and privileges of education . . ..
"Sec. 7. That the Regents shall have authority whenever in their opinion the funds of the Institution may justify the measure, to admit gratuitously, in whole or in part, as the respective case may require, such person or persons as they may think proper to enjoy the benefits of tuition in said University."
Laws of Iowa, Passed at the Extra Session of The Legislative Assembly Which Commenced on the 17th Day of June, 1844, Also, The Laws Of The Regular Session, Which Commenced on the 5th Day of May, 1845 (Iowa City: Williams & Palmer, 1845).Chapter 41, University of Iowa City, p. 61.
However, the Act of February 25, 1847, often referred to as the Act creating the University of Iowa ("There shall be established at Iowa City, the present seat of government of the state of Iowa, an institution to be called the 'State University of Iowa,' . . ."), does expressly provide (with regard to education of future "common schools" teachers), "That the grants . . . herein made are upon the express condition that the said university shall . . . commence and continue the instruction -- free of charge -- of fifty students annually, in the theory and practice of teaching, as well as in such branches of learning as shall be deemed best calculated for the preparation of said students for the business of common school teaching." Acts and Resolutions Passed at the First Session of the General Assembly of the State of Iowa Which Convened at Iowa City, on the Thirtieth Day of Novembeer, A.D. 1846 (Iowa City: A. H. Palmer, 1847), Chapter 125, Secs. 1, 7, p. 156 (February 25, 1847), in Laws of Iowa, First to Fourth General Assembly, 1846-1913, Reprint 1913.
Here are some stories reporting on the Regents' efforts:
Brian Morelli, "Gartner suggests lengthening the K-12 school year," Iowa City Press-Citizen, October 31, 2008, p. A1 ("System-wide, the regents are a $4 billion enterprise, Regent President David Miles said, noting that is two-thirds the size of the entire state budget of Iowa, which is about $6 billion. 'We are an enterprise of scope, scale and significance that if we set our direction, we should be able to make a difference,' Miles said. . . .
The conversation included access for Iowa students; managing budgets, state appropriations and tuition; helping Iowa with economic development, job creation and attracting people as the population ages; improving diversity; increasing competition from overseas; and improving the quality of education, among others. One of the areas of focus was productivity of the faculty and the cost effectiveness of academic programs, and putting research into practice. . . .
Regent Michael Gartner discussed increasing the K-12 school year by 30 days as a way Iowa could invest in education and use it as an economic development tool. 'If we could say, "Move your company to Iowa, and when your employees' children graduate from high school, they will be a year smarter than if they were in Illinois or Kansas or Ohio," that would be awfully powerful,' the Des Moines businessman said. . . .
Another topic was the declining level of state dollars -- about $750 million this past year -- as a proportion of the regents' overall budget. 'The level of state support is not sustainable,' Gartner said.").
Diane Heldt, "Regents Want Goals with State Focus," The Gazette, October 31, 2008, p. B4 ("[Dennis] Jones, president of the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems, said he sees four areas the regents should focus on . . . closing the achievement gap . . . ; higher education's role . . . in economic development . . .; providing a trained work force . . .; keeping higher education affordable. . . . [W]hat are the societal needs in Iowa . . ..").
Erin Jordan, "Regents see population-tuition link," Des Moines Register, October 31, 2008 ("Iowa's state universities may have the potential to reverse the state's declining population trends, several members of the Iowa Board of Regents said. The about-face could be made by charging nonresidents the same tuition as residents or recruiting more international students, suggested regents and university leaders at a strategic planning brainstorming session Thursday.").
Amanda McClure, "Regents See Need for Diversity; Bringing People to the State on the Forefront of the State Board of Regents' Strategy," The Daily Iowan, October 31, 2008, p. A1.
Amanda McClure, "Regents Want to Burnish Iowa's Rep," The Daily Iowan, October 31, 2008, p. A4.
Other university news:
Brian Morelli, "Regents Turn to AG on Stolar Note Request," Iowa City Press-Citizen, October 31, 2008, p. A5 ("The Iowa state Board of Regents is backing off statements that it intends to release notes from interviews conducted during an investigation of the University of Iowa's handling of a sexual assault case. Regent President David Miles said Thursday that the regents have turned the Stolar Partnership notes over to the Iowa Attorney General's Office and are waiting for direction.").
Erin Jordan, "U of I Hospitals to cut $24.8 million to meet budget," Des Moines Register, October 29, 2008
# # #
[Editorial cartoon credit: The Press-Citizen's talented Bob Patton; "Prairie Lights, Unplugged," Posted November 11, 2008, 4:05 p.m. CST, published November 12, 2008, p. A18.]
